- 13 -
Petitioner has identified no ministerial error or delay
after the October 4, 1999 issuance of the notice of deficiency,
and we find none. After issuance of the notice determining the
fraud penalties for 1989, 1990, and 1991, petitioner failed to
petition this Court with respect to the fraud penalties for 1989
and 1990 determined in the notice. The penalties were assessed
107 days after the expiration of the period for filing a Tax
Court petition, on April 19, 2000, and were paid on October 17,
2000.
Petitioner advances one additional basis for finding an
abuse of discretion by respondent. Relying on Jacobs v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-123, petitioner claims that
respondent abused his discretion by failing to disclose the basis
for his decision to reject petitioner’s claim for abatement of
interest. Petitioner’s reliance on Jacobs is misplaced. In that
case, the Commissioner had given no explanation of his decision
not to abate interest, other than a conclusory statement that
there were no errors or delays that warranted abatement. Here,
while the explanation given in the notice of final determination
is likewise conclusory, respondent offered a more detailed
statement of his reasons in the written explanation accompanying
the preliminary determination to deny abatement. The reasons
therein given, to the effect that the delay attributable to the
investigation of petitioner’s case and the criminal proceedings
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011